Is RTW really that bad

[KSEG]

Sorry, but I've looked at those screen shots, and to me certain things are evident.

One, the RTW screenshot is pretty lame as far as screenshots go. For a comparison, the shots s/h been on the same SCALE!!!

Though, it really doesn't matter.

The RTW shoot is rather bland and generic, with absolutely NO 'sense of place'. RTW maps have no sense of place.

Shogun maps felt like Japan!

MTW maps have a feeling of Europe! as well as, the deserts of north Africa. The desert felt like the desert, sandstorms felt like sandstorms; Fatigue in the desert felt like, *fatigue* in the desert!!

Granted, the first MTW shot *could* be either Japan or Europe; but the second, with its hedgrows is----Europe.

Overall, the MTW shots, simply are more REAL.

I look at the first MTW shot, and immediately my trained TW mind's-eye starts to, intuitively, determine the advantage I can take from the **elevations**. Immediately, I determine which side of the line I intend to *press* the attack for maximum advantage.

The second, the first thing I notice is that there is less *immediate* elevation advantage, at least for my foot troops. So, my eye goes to where best to place my Archers, and therefore the center of my line. Also, I note that Cav can play a pivotal role (note, I, ToranagaSama play with Hardcore Rules, limiting Cav units to no more than 4, including the General).

In fact, I REMEMER this map! Due to the rather open rolling nature of the terrain, battles tend to be rather losely structured affairs. Discipline is important. If you have your units running willy nilly all over the battlefield the AI will kick your butt.

A most significant thing to note, is the **distance** between the two armies. It is HUGE! Hardcore-type battles on this map tend, in my experience, to be battles of positioning and opening gambits. IMO, this one of those maps where the AI, with even or better troop strength and quality, has a good chance of victory, unless the Player is on top of his game.

I've had many an epic battle on this map.

Now, let's take a look at the RTW map:

My first thought is that as long as the AI isn't on top of that hill, then no problem. The AI, of course, is NOT going to be on top of the hill, we all know that!

So, at best, the AI will have a **slight** downhill advantage, but even that doesn't really matter much in RTW. So, frankly, the terrain doesn't bother me AT ALL!!!

Truly, there is little to no terrain considerations to consider--NADA! Terrain and the use of it will NOT determine this battle, and there's little remotely interesting either tactically or visually.

Now, thinking about this from a technological point of view, perhaps, the tactical and visual pleasures of STW/MTW maps was sacraficed, in order that we have RTW's *Dynamic* maps. Perhaps, but we haven't heard so from the mysterious ones in Britain.

If so, then, OK, one can understand what CA was shooting for. Though, I believe it s/h stayed in development with the game being released with the normal STW/MTW mapping.

Tell me, why is the RTW one is just a
400 men hiding besides a tree.
and
MTW one is
hundreds of men fighting in a open field?
Don't you smell something deliberate?

[barocca]

Tell me, why is the RTW one is just a
400 men hiding besides a tree.
and
MTW one is
hundreds of men fighting in a open field?
Don't you smell something deliberate?

tell you what, other than ER's battlefield wonders mod (will be downloadable within the next 12 hours)

show me another RTW battlefield with a sense of "place/presence"

i have yet to find one in SP campaign that even begins to make me feel that i am "there"

now go and drool over ER's Battlefield Wonders
:-)
Cheers,
B.

[player1]

Well the thing is that RTW battlefileds are autogenerated from campaign map.

That means that there will always be some sacrifices since some location will just neve be interesting. While MTW are manualy made so higher level of detail on every location is expected.


But, I do like that I can see my ships or wonder of the world in vicinity. Or city in far distance. Or farms that are nearby.

That is the advantage of autogenerated maps.


P.S.
When we are at this, I think there is also one disadvantage of these maps. It's called saving battlefiled replays. I guess they are the reasons why you can't save battle in campaign (since replay engine is just saving troop momement and existing custom map).

[ToranagaSama]

Hmmm....

player1, I think you are the first that I've read that gives a good speculative explanation for why there are no replays. For the first time, I get it. Why CA hasn't explained it, technically, is beyond reason.

I suppose in order to have replays, the auto-generated map would, first, have to be *saved*, but then there'd need to be code similar to MTW made to locate, load, and incorporate the map and the battle specifics into an environment. The RTW engeine doesn't have this capability, since it created to auto-generate maps and incorporte battle specifics. Similar, but Significantly different in methodology.

You'd think that the RTW engine would be capable of detailing and saving map parameters along with battle specifics, incorporating the two and re(-auto-)generating a previously generated map.

You'd a thunkit, but ONLY if you thought it from day one, apparently they didn't; either that or they had HUGE issues in saving, incorporating and/or re-generating, and scraped it prior to release.

Anyway, enought of that!

That means that there will always be some sacrifices since some location will just neve be interesting. While MTW are manualy made so higher level of detail on every location is expected.


But, I do like that I can see my ships or wonder of the world in vicinity. Or city in far distance. Or farms that are nearby.

That is the advantage of autogenerated maps.

Yeah, I get *what* is SUPPOSED to be the advantage.

I ask you, is the supposed advantage a reality, and, is that reality a good trade-off. In comparison, has the Game Atmosphere been enhanced; and/or has Gameplay been been enhanced through *auto-generated* maps?

Sorry, there has to be a value judgment. Let's examine things:

The pre-conceived *value* of "auto-generated" maps would be in bringing greater DEPTH to TW Battles. Is there any other reason? Please articulate. I believe I summed it up.

Presummably, an unpredictable and unfamiliar battlefield will, generally, have a greater *tactical* challenge, again, presumably, as a result of a player unfamiliarity.

A legitmate issue re STW, because it had a smaller Campaign Map equaling fewer provinces, was that for a Player who played alot (note to CA: these people were the Hardcore!!!), battles soon became somewhat predictable as one tended to use the same or similar tactics on specific STW maps.

While STW maps are the most **tactically** challenging of ALL the TW maps, there is a limited number of them; and, once you've mastered the terrain, tactically, then predictability sets in.

To a similar, thouse substantially less degree, the same can be said of MTW. Though, if a Player plays enough, the same may, eventually, be specifically the same. Again, CA, these players are the HARDCORE!

[Why are you ignoring the Hardcore, now?]

So, CA, the great and innovative folks that they are, listened and came up with a solution---auto-generation. Ingenious and the right solution----simply NOT the **right-now** solution. Get it?

"Right-now" solutions, are those that provide a BETTER gameplay experience.

Is auto-generation *better* technology than non-auto-generated maps? Hell yes!!!

But, does auto-generated maps provide a better gameplay experience as yet? Sorry, NO.

ATMOSPHERE. ATMOSPHERE. ATMOSPHERE. ATMOSPHERE. ATMOSPHERE.

Since the announcement of the original Shogun: Total War, atmosphere has been an integral and definning feature of Total War. Crap, the ORIGINAL *Shogun* promotional site had more "atmosphere" than Rome: Total War (possibly excepting the Campaign Map, possibly not). This is Truth; and ONLY the ***true*** Veterans can know (or judge), as the original site, just before or just after the Shogun release the site was revamped to what exist now.

Shogun was ALL about atmosphere! The Creative Assembly went to great lengths to create and ensure a VERY certain level of (?) Atmospherics.... To an extent exceeding the development effort, in this respect, of ANY of game ever made before or since.

An extreme effort deserving of extreme respect and admiration.

Unless one has viewed the original site, and played Shogun you just don't know.

Things started going downhill with MTW. Much of the Atmospherics was dispensed with. Yet the detailed Maps were not.

I want to *feel* like a Damiyo in Japan.
I want to *feel* like a Medieval Lord.
I want to *feel* like a Roman General.

In order to *feel*, extreme Atmospherics are necessary.

In this regard, any *value* judgment in consideration of a Total War game, must succumb to the primacy of Atmospherics. Atmospherics are crucial to Gameplay, and Gameplay and Atmospherics are EQUAL. Neither should succumb to the other (other areas of the game can be sacraficed.

[The above s/b incorporated into the Mission Statement.]

As I've said the *Technology* is great! Kudos to those deserving.

Yet, in the overal scheme of the game, Technology should NEVER have supremecy over Gameplay and Atmospherics.

The auto-generation technology, at its present stage of development, does NOT enhance either Gameplay, nor Atmospherics.

The non-auto-generated maps are superior in both Atmospherics (visuals) and Gameplay (terrain).

Additionally, the fact that the technology does not, as yet, allow for ***Replays*** is a non-starter. No need to expand upon this much further, as CA has admitted their error in comprehending the value of the Replay feature.

The one thing I will say, is that Developers are Gamers, but, Developers aren't ***Players****. The time and effort that Developers put into Developing is equal and equivalent to that which *Players* put into Playing. Players could NEVER be developers and Developers could NEVER be Players. They are both Gamers!

This is WHY, we, the Hardcore, need to be CONSULTED and LISTENED too!

We know what *you* don't, just as you know what *we* don't. [Like why the heck we can't have MP Campaigns!! joking, joking....]

If Technology doesn't meet the Mission Statement criteria, it shouldn't make it into the game; and if the *Players* tell you that the Technology doesn't meet the, needs, wants and/or desires to the extent necessary, then the Mission Statement needs to be revamped---or, a new adherence applied.

I have absolutely no doubt that auto-generated maps will eventually meet and exceed previous standards of both Atmospherics and Gameplay. Just gimme back the original map styles until such time, thank you.

TS

BTW, Wonders and other eye-candy can never be a trade-off for Gameplay.

---

Oh yeah,

Tell me, why is the RTW one is just a
400 men hiding besides a tree.
and
MTW one is
hundreds of men fighting in a open field?
Don't you smell something deliberate?

Show me how it matters?

I wasn't looking at the *men* on-the-field, I was looking at THE FIELD!

---

P.S., to ANYONE who thinks *I* am looking through Rose-colored, think AGAIN! Proof is in the Maps, and beyond that, time will tell.

Who knows better, a Player who's invested his personal time in the game PLAYING; or, the Engineer who's spent his business time Engineering?

IMUHO, the Total War Mission Statement should incorporate the Tenets of the Hippocratic Oath-----you know, generally, "do no harm". Here is the last line:

If I fulfill this Oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

---

Oh well, I understand Chris Taylor is back in the game, so the RTS competition has been--stepped up. Thank goodness.

[edyzmedieval]

RTW is quite bad in my opinion.....

RTW is no longer Total War....

The Medieval times were a complete bloodhshed...Ruthless rulers assembled their huge armies and fought on the battlefield..... Thousands of men died.... This is Total War!!!! This is the true meaning of this game series!!!!

[Marcellus]

The Medieval times were a complete bloodhshed

And the Roman times weren't? Caesar killed a million Gauls in his conquests!

[Slyspy]

Yes but in RTW you don't get the struggle for territory seen in S/MTW but a mere slow slog around the map. The major problems are the pathetically slow movement rate (presumably the turn-based game is the limiting factor here) and an AI that is incapable of playing its own game. The AI was week in MTW (the scissors-paper-stone mechanic was weakened by the unit variety) but it really does appear to be the same AI code in RTW. This can be the only reason why it cannot follow the rules of its own game. Coupled with the diminished importance and effect of elevation and fatigue (try assaulting a hill top army in North Africa in both games and tell me which models the heat etc better) and tactic become unimportant. I stopped playing RTW when I realised I spent more time chasing routers then fighting. Mods bravely attempt to redress the balance, but the underlying flaws are still there. If I could return my copy of RTW then I would.

[Marcellus]

The major problems are the pathetically slow movement rate...

I'd agree with you there. Armies move around far too slowly.

But I still think that RTW is a pretty decent game, depite some of its flaws.

[hoom]

Regarding the auto generated maps.

I agree that the manually created maps for Shogun were very good & RTW maps are plain, tactically dull & generally uninspiring.
The 1.2 maps are somewhat better I think.
No replays is a bad loss.

But there is some advantage to the autogeneration though; 10,000 different maps on just the base game + the ability to make some comparitively minor alterations to text & graphic files to create a brand new strategy map with a completely different geographical focus.

If 1.2 showed progress & BI/2.0(?) goes further then the future could be bright, particularly since the modders have discovered the ability to place custom tiles within an otherwise auto-generated map.

Come to think of it, clever/well resourced modders should be able to craft good manual maps for certain chokepoints where battles can be expected to occur fairly often & specific areas of note as well as important cities & have them integrate with the autogeneration.
Hopefully we'll get there before China:TW or whatever full sequel comes out...

[edit]

You will need to reinstall soon because the AI's Revenge Mod is almost done.

Need linkage!

BTW, I saw something about BI having a new savegame format & really hope that means AI state + map randomness will be stored for savegame continuity & campiagn gam. replays

[HarunTaiwan]

Oh man, those MTW screenshots make me want to go play MTW again.

[barocca]

a little confused i am
(having just fixed the battle wonders download - it had a tile missing - ER emailed me detailed instructions on how to make the missing tile, he is away from his own pc for a few days - new version is 30 mins more to finish upload)

anyway that was my first foray into editing maps in rome and something does not add up

the map/tile i edited was centered on a specific co-ordinate on the campaign map

i "made" the map/tile 3 time to ensure i had put the model exactly where ER wanted it to be

and each time the map was the same
the trees and hillocks in the same places...

NOW
battle replays
dont we fight our campaign battles on a specific co-ordinate on the campaign map?
therefore could not the co-ordinate be included in the "campaign battle replay"?
as long as the "viewer" has the same modded/unmodded campaign map the battle should be on the same ground


where is my theory wrong?

[Duke John]

barocca
A custom tile has all the geography saved in a (3MB) file. As a result everything is the same time after time.

Non-custom tiles (the ones who are generated from the campaign map) have changes since the engine uses random modifiers/fractal noise/tolerance ranges to calcalute the geography of the land. As a result the tile will be different the next you play it, although the geography on a large scale will look mostly similar.

A possible solution for CA might be to save the tile upon which the campaing/mp/custom battle took place. The replay can then use the geography of the saved non-custom tile to make sure that the geopgraphy is the same as in the original battle. The downside is that replays will be 3MB more, but I guess that is a price most are wiling to pay.

[barocca]

....... the engine uses random modifiers/fractal noise/tolerance ranges to calcalute the geography of the land. As a result the tile will be different the next you play it, although the geography on a large scale will look mostly similar......

oki, so these are numbers right?
the numbers are used by the engine to calculate the difference between what has occured in campaign against the base tile and generate an adjusted map

SO
since they are numbers, set values upon which the engine calculates changes,
then
simply save these values (random modifiers/fractal noise/tolerance ranges)
just like seed values in civ maps

B.

[Duke John]

Well, that was what I try to say in my 3rd paragraph

[player1]

One thing to remmber is that autogenerated maps keep track of things like nearby ships, or what buildings exists in some city.

Just having basic map is not enough.

[CBR]

AFAIK its possible to use all the maps in MP by just adding the coordinates to a txt file and the replays for it work too. So replays for campaign battles shouldnt have been that difficult to implement. It appears CA was surprised that people wanted replays


CBR

[Crazed Rabbit]

If you want to see good auto-gen'ed battles, check out Mount and Blade. CA should've made an auto-gen like that were the basic parameters of the map would be set (elevation of the four corners of the map, slope, hillyness, etc. then generated a unique map, so we could actually have some real terrain. The M&B one was designed by one guy, and the maps (still in beta!) are a lot better.

Crazed Rabbit

[sunsmountain]

It's interesting that you atribute sheild bonuses, flanking and elevation bonuses to a mod when in fact they are features of RTW.
Of course modding units stats, as in RTR may very well have increased the noticeablility of these features and added value to them.

Hey Intrepid Sidekick, glad you could join the discussion. Perhaps now, 1 year after release, somebody from CA would care to comment on:

- do you feel that all these ideas present in Rome: Total War would have been better justified with a non-deadline, non-hyped game?
- does creating a mood, a flavour, within a game, take time?
- once you have a lot of new ideas, dont you need time, instead of yet another preview/interview or a new idea?
- tell us hardcore fans what went wrong... c'mon you know we still love you.

Perhaps rephrasing:
- When you tried to set the balance the first time (with which some players disagree now), that was of course well intended, but was it rushed in any way?

Never mind you already answered it here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...437#post721437

Oh, and to reply to the discussion: Hand on my heart, Rome looks better than MTW. But MTW feels more like a game, whereas RomeTW feels like a lot of new ideas & hype, and a bit of a game as well...

On a different note, are you excited about the possibilities Windows Graphics Foundation has in store? How will unified shaders benefit (rome) Total War? Does this mean dragons ?

[Productivity]

First of all...i don`t want to argue with anyone.....BUT,come on ....for those who think RTW is bad....let`s face it.....don`t tell that just because u got bored of RTW...that`s the problem i think...everyone started criticised RTW because they got bored of it.....how come at the beginning almost no one criticised the game.that`s the truth guys.RTW is a great game...and it always be a great game.peace!

You don't get bored of great games. You get bored of weak games. I am bored of R:TW. I am not bored of M:TW. One has been out a year, one has been out for four years. You work out which is the weak game.

[Krauser]

See I don't think its that bad because I don't get enough time to play it. 2-3 hours a day is the most time I ever get for games and that's split between multiple games so I never really get a chance to get bored of it hehe.

[Carth]

Reading this thread makes me sad, and think I should uninstall it after starting to play it :(

It isn't that bad, it's still a good game, you're just comparing it to a better one. Credit to CA for making games that are so hard to beat.

[Marcellus]

Credit to CA for making games that are so hard to beat

My sentiments precisely

[CMcMahon]

It's not so much that it's hard to beat, it's just that it takes forever to control the entire map. Getting 15 provinces with any province isn't very hard, and getting 50 is only a matter of time.

[Mr.Giggles]

I have been playing RTW for about 2 months now and I think by far its one of the best strategy games I've ever played mainly because theres actually strategy involved much more than people make it out for. I mean when you think about it most real time strategy games are just build up armies then send them to die (COUGH warcraft 3 COUGH). Even Command and COnquer is just a mass and kill game with some strategy involved by what unit to kill first and how to kill it.

So basically if you like the Total War series... get it and check it out besides they are coming out with the Barbarian invasion(an invasion? boy sounds familiar) expansion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by Coldfish
First of all...i don`t want to argue with anyone.....BUT,come on ....for those who think RTW is bad....let`s face it.....don`t tell that just because u got bored of RTW...that`s the problem i think...everyone started criticised RTW because they got bored of it.....how come at the beginning almost no one criticised the game.that`s the truth guys.RTW is a great game...and it always be a great game.peace!

Your kidding right? Many of us veterans complained from the day we bought it. I didnt even keep it a week so you can hardly say I got bored of it. Maybe you didnt hear the critisism but those of us who stayed with VI and MTW sure had plenty ot say about its short comings. Im still in no rush to buy it again after reading this thread.

[Krauser]

I have been playing RTW for about 2 months now and I think by far its one of the best strategy games I've ever played mainly because theres actually strategy involved much more than people make it out for. I mean when you think about it most real time strategy games are just build up armies then send them to die (COUGH warcraft 3 COUGH). Even Command and COnquer is just a mass and kill game with some strategy involved by what unit to kill first and how to kill it.

So basically if you like the Total War series... get it and check it out besides they are coming out with the Barbarian invasion(an invasion? boy sounds familiar) expansion.

I think Warcraft III has a good amount of strategy in it. In RTW the AI is so bad you can train one unit and take on full armies without much trouble. Try to do that in Warcraft III, it won't work. Your force has to be a mix of units. Even in battle, you have to be quick about which special skills you want your units to use and make sure to target them right. When it comes to playing with the pros this "micromanaging" means all the difference.

RTW is more realistic than War3 so maybe you could say it has more realistic strategy but as far as the number of ways to go about a battle, War3 wins by far.

[Carth]

It's not so much that it's hard to beat, it's just that it takes forever to control the entire map. Getting 15 provinces with any province isn't very hard, and getting 50 is only a matter of time.

That's not what I meant lol. I was referring to RTW not being worse than MTW and hence NOT "beating" it. Credit to CA for STW and MTW being so good that it was hard to make a game better than them...

[Carth]

Damn I can't edit my post? I had one too many nots in there, should read "I was referring to RTW being worse".

[CMcMahon]

I think Warcraft III has a good amount of strategy in it. In RTW the AI is so bad you can train one unit and take on full armies without much trouble. Try to do that in Warcraft III, it won't work. Your force has to be a mix of units. Even in battle, you have to be quick about which special skills you want your units to use and make sure to target them right. When it comes to playing with the pros this "micromanaging" means all the difference.

RTW is more realistic than War3 so maybe you could say it has more realistic strategy but as far as the number of ways to go about a battle, War3 wins by far.

Strategy in Warcraft 3 (or Starcraft, or CnC, or any game like that) is a lot different though, because of the way the game is setup. Terrain makes a bit of a difference, but it's not a real case of who holds what ground or who's defending or whatnot, it's more of a case of who can click on what unit fast enough to kill their superunit(s) faster and then force him to react to you. In RTW, you can setup ambushes on a tactical scale, by hiding in trees or behind hills where the enemy can't see you, come around from behind and nail them, or divide their troops. It's rare that you see things like that in a traditional RTS, just because of the way the levels are setup.

[LestaT]

1. Is there anyone who plays to lose ? I pity them.

2. Isn't ancient battles are fought on flat terrain because of logistic in
moving large armies basically on foot ?

3. It's just me but I feel like 'Man of the hour' thing is better than simply be
able to appoint Generals according to own feels. I never appoint peasants
as generals in MTW eventhough they somehow were 'born' with 5-6 stars.

4. RTW maps simply better than MTW in term of realism. Well in MTM you
can't simply surprise your opponent right ?
With the chess board borderline you can always see there's a large stack
of forces (enemy or alies) next to you. Not like RTW if they're in ambush.

5. My personal experience : I have almost same ratio of battlefield and siege
battles. At least in RTW I can choose my battleground.

6. In RTW all are pagans so I don't feel 'miserable' if I'm sending crusades to
Moslem factions while playing as Catholics.

7. The only thing I feel I like MTW better is that certain units can be built
after certain period has come.

8. I don't mind fantasy units. Haven't you guys paly starcraft ?